Guest viewing limit reached
  • You have reached the maximum number of guest views allowed
  • Please register below to remove this limitation

Donald Trump running for president

muscleupcrohn said:
Honestly, I feel that, despite the vast advances we've made in recent decades that allow us to easily access unprecedented amounts of information and knowledge, the average voter/American is probably less politically aware/knowledgeable now than they were decades ago. A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing. People watch/read the news on the TV/internet (mass media) and think that they're becoming politically aware, when, in reality, what they are reading is heavily biased and influenced to the left or right (it doesn't really matter which side). Plus, people see something on the internet (especially if it's on a website) and assume it's inherently true, when it's often BS (most people don't know how easy it is to put information on the internet and/or make a website).

Does anyone here think that the average voter knows anything about how the candidates they are voting for/against have actually acted as politicians (how they've voted, laws they've proposed/supported/opposed, what their actual stances on issues are, etc)? It's 2016; it's easy to go on the internet and become relatively educated/informed easily (and for free), but most people don't do this. Most people stick to the news source that agrees with their right/left views, and relies on them for information, assuming that they're getting unbiased analysis.

That's my rant for now, haha. As for how Trump managed to win the primary, I've said one possibility before. Lots of people are sick and tired of "politicians," and are upset with Obama AND Bush. Lots of republicans also don't like the whole PC thing going on today. So when someone like Trump comes along, someone who clearly isn't a polished "career politician," and is definitely not PC, people rally behind him, because people want change (Obama anyone?), and they view Trump as a new course for America and American politics; I'd argue that many people are voting for the "idea of Trump" (as a candidate/politician who isn't) more than they're voting for Trump because they agree with his stances on key issues.
Click to expand...

lol...all you have to do is watch 'waters world!!!

trump is popular with republicans because he is anti-PC. for many years the republican establishment were afraid to speak out against PC for fear of being called racist, trump just plain don't give a shlt and that is why he is popular. trump is a hero among many in the anti-PC camp. at least he had the balls to stand up to POLITICAL CORRECTNESS...

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS RACIST!!!!
 
rtmilburn said:
Totally agree!!!
Click to expand...

placing one group above another is the definition of racism!!!

when you have racial and gender 'quota's' you have a decline in performance....the best/most qualified person for the job is passed by to fulfill said 'quota's'.....
 
youngandfree said:
Because the most voters elected him in the primaries. Neither party gets "a say" in who represents them. Candidates put their name on the ballot and gather the required number of signatures in each state to do so. Then the primary elections decide it. Not the party.
Click to expand...

My question was why was he allowed to enter the primaries and represent the GOP in general as a candidate? They should've known better.
 
Gutterpump said:
My question was why was he allowed to enter the primaries and represent the GOP in general as a candidate? They should've known better.
Click to expand...

isn't it obvious? no one thought he would win....hell, they thought he would be gone after the 1st debate. they underestimated how fed up republicans were with the party!!!
 
thebigt said:
isn't it obvious? no one thought he would win....hell, they thought he would be gone after the 1st debate. they underestimated how fed up republicans were with the party!!!
Click to expand...

Mmmm still. There has to be some standards in order to run for president no? I'm so confused about the whole process. Obviously not just any ol person can run. I mean, this guy has how many past wives and kids from various wives and is such a poor representative of their core values, why even allow him into the race in the first place? Clearly they won't allow just anyone to run. But they just did here. So, so confused....
 
There are literally no requirements for running other, then the constitutional requirments. Also the party didnt chose him. If it was up to them he would have never let him run for them. People pick their party affiliation. Then get enough signatures you get to run for the party. After that its all about delegates, win enough and the party has to choose you. Its that simple, they would have never let him run if they could have
 
Gutterpump said:
My question was why was he allowed to enter the primaries and represent the GOP in general as a candidate? They should've known better.
Click to expand...

You're killing me Smalls.

They dont get to pick and choose. There's a process a person has to go through to get their name in a ballot. Once they meet the requirements, the party has to allow them on the ballot.
 
Gutterpump said:
Mmmm still. There has to be some standards in order to run for president no? I'm so confused about the whole process. Obviously not just any ol person can run. I mean, this guy has how many past wives and kids from various wives and is such a poor representative of their core values, why even allow him into the race in the first place? Clearly they won't allow just anyone to run. But they just did here. So, so confused....
Click to expand...

How about you just read the Constitution instead of guessing how someone gets "allowed to be a nominee". It's in black and white what the requirements are.
 
Ha well that's ****ed if just any ol person can run for president. Maybe that should be amended after this year. Clearly he doesn't meet the requirements to be commander in chief of a global super power.
 
Gutterpump said:
Ha well that's ****ed if just any ol person can run for president. Maybe that should be amended after this year. Clearly he doesn't meet the requirements to be commander in chief of a global super power.
Click to expand...
How is that "****ed?" We vote for the President, if someone gets enough support to make it onto the ballot, win the primary, and then the general election, that's how democracy works, no? What would you propose instead?
 
Do the votes truly still count? Hanging Chads back in day, Dibold errors, putting idiots on stage to sway voters, using major tv networks to black out coverage of certain candidates, etc, etc, etc.

Invalid Link Removed
 
cubsfan815 said:
Do the votes truly still count? Hanging Chads back in day, Dibold errors, putting idiots on stage to sway voters, using major tv networks to black out coverage of certain candidates, etc, etc, etc.

Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

kennedy was the last real president....a lot more than just a man died on November 22, 1963!!!
 
thebigt said:
kennedy was the last real president....a lot more than just a man died on November 22, 1963!!!
Click to expand...
I wasn't even born yet, and I can tell he was. It's sad to think my children may never get the feeling of their votes counting.

Bush was a given, Clinton was a given, Bush was a given, Obama was a given, now Clinton is a given... The fix is already in.
 
muscleupcrohn said:
How is that "****ed?" We vote for the President, if someone gets enough support to make it onto the ballot, win the primary, and then the general election, that's how democracy works, no? What would you propose instead?
Click to expand...

That means we as a people could literally vote Ronald McDonald in because we think it's too fkn funny and entertaining. I think there needs to be some sort of regulation lol.. I mean it's the highest seat of power in the world (arguably)
 
cubsfan815 said:
I wasn't even born yet, and I can tell he was. It's sad to think my children may never get the feeling of their votes counting.

Bush was a given, Clinton was a given, Bush was a given, Obama was a given, now Clinton is a given... The fix is already in.
Click to expand...

the kennedy/Nixon debates were the 1st televised presidential debates. Nixon was vice president....until those debates everyone thought Nixon was a given.
 
Gutterpump said:
That means we as a people could literally vote Ronald McDonald in because we think it's too fkn funny and entertaining. I think there needs to be some sort of regulation lol.. I mean it's the highest seat of power in the world (arguably)
Click to expand...

you ever hear of pat Paulson? look him up!!!
 
Gutterpump said:
That means we as a people could literally vote Ronald McDonald in because we think it's too fkn funny and entertaining. I think there needs to be some sort of regulation lol.. I mean it's the highest seat of power in the world (arguably)
Click to expand...
Yeah, we could. And if we're stupid enough to do that, it's on us. There are still checks and balances; the President isn't a dictator with complete control over the country. And if the President acts very, very poorly in office, they can be impeached.

What would you consider to be "regulation?" So only career politicians could run for President?
 
muscleupcrohn said:
Yeah, we could. And if we're stupid enough to do that, it's on us. There are still checks and balances; the President isn't a dictator with complete control over the country. And if the President acts very, very poorly in office, they can be impeached.

What would you consider to be "regulation?" So only career politicians could run for President?
Click to expand...

That's a really good question. I'll give it some thought. I've actually never really thought about that before...
 
Gutterpump said:
Ha well that's ****ed if just any ol person can run for president. Maybe that should be amended after this year. Clearly he doesn't meet the requirements to be commander in chief of a global super power.
Click to expand...

The freedom of this is why you're allowed to write in a nomination. Just because anyone can run, doesn't mean they will win or have the funding for a campaign.
 
Saw this comment on Donald Trumps FB page.

"Mr Trump ...is all of this true?... Our Changing Government.....
This information has all been checked... it is 100% Correct.
That's why there is such an alarm within US government, since Trump's statement about temporary suspension of migration of Muslims to US till US authorities make sure there is a proper concept of safe penetration of US territory.
People are stunned to learn that the head of the U.S. CIA is a Muslim!
Do hope this wakes up some!
Until it hits you like a ton of bricks read it again, until you understand!
We now have a Muslim government!
John Brennan, current head of the CIA converted to Islam while stationed in Saudi Arabia .
Obama's top adviser, Valerie Jarrett, is a Muslim who was born in Iran where her parents still live.
Hillary Clinton's top adviser, Huma Abedin is a Muslim, whose mother and brother are still involved in the now outlawed Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt !
Assistant Secretary for Policy Development for Homeland Security, Arif Aikhan, is a Muslim .
Homeland Security Adviser, Mohammed Elibiary, is a Muslim .
Obama adviser and founder of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Salam al-Marayati, is a Muslim.
Obama's Sharia Czar, Imam Mohamed Magid, of the Islamic Society of North America is a Muslim .
Advisory Council on Faith-Based Neighborhood Partnerships, Eboo Patel, is a Muslim .
Nancy Pelosi announced she will appoint Rep Andre Carson, D-Ind, a Muslim , as the first Muslim lawmaker on the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, of all things! It would make Carson the first Muslim to serve on the committee that receives intelligence on the threat of Islamic militants in the Middle East!
He has suggested that U.S. schools should be modeled after Islamic madrassas, where education is based on the Quran!!!
Last but not least, our closet Muslim himself, Barack Hussein Obama.
It's questionable if Obama ever officially took the oath of office when he was sworn in. He did not repeat the oath properly to defend our nation and our Constitution. Later the Democrats claimed he was given the oath again, in private. Yeah, right.
CIA director John Brennan took his oath on a copy of the Constitution, not a Bible??
Valarie Jarret wrote her college thesis on how she wanted to change America into a Muslim friendly nation and she is a Obama top advisor!
Congressman, Keith Ellison took his oath on a copy of the Qur'an, NOT the Bible!
Conservative Congresswoman Michele Bachman, R-MN, was vilified and verbally tarred and feathered by Democrats when she voiced her concern about Muslims taking over our government!
Considering all these appointments, it would explain why Obama and his minions are systematically destroying our nation, supporting radical Muslim groups worldwide, opening our southern border, and turning a blind eye to the genocide being perpetrated on Christians all over Africa and the Middle East !
The more damage Obama does, the more arrogant he's become!
Our nation and our government has been infiltrated by people who want to destroy us! It can only get worse!
In his book Obama said, "if it comes down to it, I will side with the Muslims".
If you fail to pass this one on, there's something wrong……somewhere!
Common sense doesn't grow in everyone’s garden!"
 
Trump loses yet more support from his fellow party members. On Tuesday, Richard Hanna of New York became the first Republican congressman to publicly declare that he would vote for Democrat Hillary Clinton.

Mr Hanna called Mr Trump "a national embarrassment".

Invalid Link Removed
 
Matthandyo said:
Invalid Link Removed
Click to expand...

Expect men weren't created to be a terrorist group. Islam was, from the very very beginning it supported and even says in its quran, the its ok to attack, steal, and kill people as long as they arent muslims. Muhammad was a murder, rapist, and a child molestater(even by their standards of the time). Thats why it expanded so fast as people were scared and knew if they were muslim that they would safe(sort of depending on their tribe). The "radical" muslims are the one that are actually following the religion, the ones that arent considered radical truly arent following the teachings.
 
I see the point they're trying to make, that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it's not a very good comparison, as I don't see terrorists killing people in the name of "men." Again, valid point, but a bit exaggerated and sensational to try to illustrate it.
 
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"

Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."


Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".


Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction."

And my god there is soooo much more. Honestly look it the history of islam and Muhammad, look at there holy writings (quran and writings from other prophets) and honestly tell that, that relgion isnt supporting terrorism.
 
Invalid Link Removed

Dude seriously? You know how much violence is also in the Christian bible? We've seriously talked about all this like 3-4 times in here already *yawn*
 
thebigt said:
it's good for a laugh, sad thing there is so much dirt on a presidential nominee.

the Clinton's are so dirty they give dr mudd a bad name!!!
Click to expand...
if Donald would shut his politically and socially incorrect arrogant insensitive abrasive (i use those terms not in a derogatory way) mouth people may remember that Hilary is a criminal and has a legacy of criminal and currupt actions. If he keeps it up he's going to hand it to her.

Donald needs to focus off of the social civil political drama that our current government uses to keep most blind to their agenda and focus on presenting a plan to ignite our economy and produce jobs - national highway infer structure, national bulletin train infer structure and renewable energy. He could also focus of greenhouse gas reduction by said projects. He could change the entire landscape of our transportation and energy industries and it could impact our economy for generations to come.
 
David Dunn said:
if Donald would shut his politically incorrect arrogant insensitive abrasive (i use those terms not in a derogatory way) mouth people may remember that Hilary is a criminal and has a legacy of criminal and currupt actions. If he keeps it up he's going to hand it to her.
Click to expand...

No matter what his policies are, a person with the above attributes is not suitable to lead.
 
Gutterpump said:
Invalid Link Removed

Dude seriously? You know how much violence is also in the Christian bible? We've seriously talked about all this like 3-4 times in here already *yawn*
Click to expand...

Yes but old testiment is them defending themselves or overcoming violence and new testiment teaches nonviolence. Wheras quran is demanding them to kill all nonbelievers there is a big difference. And sorry to bring it up again i fidnt realize that this was discussed.
 
rtmilburn said:
Yes but old testiment is them defending themselves or overcoming violence and new testiment teaches nonviolence. Wheras quran is demanding them to kill all nonbelievers there is a big difference. And sorry to bring it up again i fidnt realize that this was discussed.
Click to expand...

Stoning, beheading, etc etc... this isn't defense. This is how they lived back then, all of them. Christians also had their version of the Jihad already, far after the 'new testament' was written.
 
Point is, we can sit here and attack any religion all day long. Doesn't make one religion wrong or right. People are inherently violent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top